Back to research feed

Regional anesthesia and pain medicine

September 29, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Assessing the changes in outcome measurements in randomized controlled trials of regional anesthesia interventions: a registry-publication comparison study.

McCormick C, Waller D, Langerman R, +6 more, Vassar M.

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Most regional anaesthesia trials changed their registered outcomes, often after completion or publication, and the changes were not disclosed.

What was studied

A registry-based cross-sectional analysis of 74 RA trials (2017-2024) comparing earliest and latest ClinicalTrials.gov records.

Key findings

  • 91.9% had at least one substantive outcome change
  • Latest modification occurred after primary completion in 47.1% and after publication in 51.5%, with none disclosed
  • 37.8% had high-impact modifications

Clinical relevance

It raises concern about outcome-reporting bias in regional anaesthesia evidence.

Who should care

Anaesthesiology

Limitations

Limited to trials with posted results and linked publications on one registry.

Check registered outcomes against the published ones when appraising RA trials.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Background

Regional anesthesia (RA) is increasingly used due to its safety and effectiveness in reducing postoperative pain and opioid use. As in other areas of clinical research, transparent and consistent outcome reporting is important for interpreting trial evidence. This study assessed the extent and nature of temporal changes to prespecified outcomes in interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after the implementation of the Final Rule and the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801.

Methods

We conducted a registry-based cross-sectional analysis of RA trials initiated between January 2017 and December 2024. Eligible trials enrolled adults, were interventional in design, had posted tabular results on ClinicalTrials.gov, and were linked to a peer-reviewed publication. Using ClinicalTrials.gov version histories, we compared the earliest and most recent registry records to identify modifications in outcome definitions, timing and classifications. Changes were categorized by type, timing and interpretive impact. Disclosure of modifications in registry records and publications was assessed.

Results

Among 74 eligible trials, 91.9% exhibited at least one substantive outcome change between registry versions. Among trials with substantive outcome modifications, the most recently entered substantive modification occurred after primary completion in 47.1% and after publication in 51.5%, and none were disclosed. Changes to both primary and secondary outcomes were common, with 37.8% of trials exhibiting high-impact modifications. Minor rewording was the most frequent change type, though often accompanied by more substantive shifts in outcome measurement tools, timepoints, or classifications. Secondary outcomes were more frequently added or removed than primary outcomes.

Discussion

In this sample of 74 RA trials, differences between the earliest and most recent registered outcome fields were common, including changes involving primary outcomes. For most of these trials, the most recently entered substantive modification occurred after primary completion or publication and was not explicitly explained in the associated publication. These findings describe the frequency and timing of registry modifications but cannot determine why the changes occurred or whether they influenced the reported results.

DOI

10.1136/rapm-2026-108295

PMID

42810771

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in